Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00051166-CU-PT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Petitions - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00051166-CU-PT-CTL PETITION IN RE: 3957 30TH ST #220, SAN DIEGO, CA 92104 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Claimant San Diego Housing Commission's Motion for Reconsideration of Minute Order Disbursing Surplus Funds is DENIED.

Claimant San Diego Housing Commission's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted. (ROA 77.) Claimant California Housing Finance Agency joined in Claimant Michele Rodriguez' opposition to this motion. (ROA 98.) In this motion, Claimant San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dated February 16, 2024, to disburse surplus funds from a foreclosure sale of real property located at 3957 30th Street #220, San Diego, California 92104, under C.C.P. section 1008(a) and (b). (ROA 68 – Minute Order dated Feb. 16, 2024.) C.C.P. section 1008(a) states: 'When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.' This motion is brought more than 10 days after the Court confirmed its tentative ruling. Notwithstanding, the record does not reflect SDHC received written notice of the ruling. Thus, the Court will consider the merits.

In addition to being timely, C.C.P. section 1008(a) requires 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law...' (See also, Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1098.) Here, none are offered in the moving memorandum and this point is ignored in the reply. Indeed, the facts relied on through the Declaration Sujata Raman predate the Court's ruling. No explanation as to why the points made now were not discussed earlier. (See, Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690 (moving party must provide a 'satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce [the] evidence at an earlier time.').) Notwithstanding SDHC's failure to identify new or different facts, circumstances or law, its position 'the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105423  55 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PETITION IN RE: 3957 30TH ST #220, SAN DIEGO, CA 92104  37-2022-00051166-CU-PT-CTL Court never provided SDHC with the opportunity to fully brief a response to the Court's tentative ruling' lacks merit. First, no legal authority is provided requiring the Court to grant such an opportunity after the tentative ruling was issued.

Second, SDHC had its chance to fully explain what it attempts to explain in this motion. SDHC filed its claim to the surplus proceeds on December 28, 2022. The claim included a memorandum. (ROA 8.) In the memorandum, SDHC summarily concluded without any supporting legal analysis or explanation that SDHC's lien exceeded the sum deposited with the court and that it should be paid all of the remaining funds. (Id., at p. 5:13-22.) The memorandum was supported by Sujata Raman's first declaration, again, without any explanation as to how SDHC was entitled to the accelerated amounts of its two loans.

Plaintiff's claim filed after SDHC's, expressly disputed SDHC's claim and that the loans accelerated.

(ROA 11 – Rodriguez' Claim, at p. 2:12-3:28.) SDHC did not respond. Thereafter, on December 15, 2023, the parties, including SDHC, 'agree[d] this matter may proceed on the filed papers without the need of a trial.' (ROA 65.) At that time, SDHC never contended it needed to further brief any of the issues.

C.C.P. section 1008(b) also does not apply. It states, '[a] party who originally made an application for an order...may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law...' Here, SDHC did not make an application or file the original petition.

For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

On March 19, 2024, the Court stayed the distribution of the surplus funds until April 16, 2024. That stay will expire as stated.

Concluding Orders If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, it will become the Court's final order.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final order on all appearing parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105423  55